Why Harvey Weinstein’s rape conviction was overturned and what’s next

Thursday’s ruling overturning Harvey Weinstein’s New York rape conviction gives the onetime movie mogul a chance at a new trial and calls into question what evidence prosecutors can use in future sex-crime cases.

Here’s what happened to the case that helped spark the MeToo movement, and what might happen next.

Why was the conviction overturned?

Weinstein, 72, was found guilty of raping one woman and sexually assaulting another after both testified in court.

But a 4-3 majority of the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, found that the trial judge should not have allowed three other women to testify that Weinstein also assaulted them because their allegations are not part of criminal charges against him.

Such testimony about “prior bad acts” is generally barred by New York’s so-called Molyneux rule, named after a landmark court case from 1901. A majority of the court found that the three women’s testimony ran afoul of the rule and make the process unfair.

Why are other women even allowed to testify?

Molyneux’s rule is not absolute. It stipulates that prosecutors cannot use such testimony to prove a defendant has a “propensity” to commit a crime, but they can use it as evidence of motive or intent.

In Weinstein’s case, prosecutors convinced the judge that the producer’s alleged past sexual assaults showed that he knew his accusers did not agree to his advances, but still intended to force them into sex.

Prosecutors believed the evidence would help disprove Weinstein’s claim that the encounters were consensual.

However, the appeals court found that the testimony was merely evidence that he had a propensity to commit rape and sexual assault, not his motive or intent.

What the California Weinstein Case Ruling Means

Weinstein was sentenced to 16 years in prison after a separate 2022 rape conviction in California, which he is expected to appeal, and the New York ruling has no direct effect on that case.

In fact, California law specifically allows testimony of prior bad acts in sex crime cases as evidence that the defendant has a propensity to commit sex crimes. Such evidence was used in Weinstein’s trial in California, and the state’s laws will make it more difficult for his lawyers to challenge on appeal than in New York.

What the decision means for future cases in New York State

According to the majority of the court, very little. Judge Jenny Rivera wrote in the majority opinion that the ruling was based on well-settled New York law and said it was similar to another 1996 Court of Appeals decision, The People v. Vargas, overturning a rape conviction because witnesses were allowed to testify about earlier alleged rapes by the defendant.

The justices who dissented from Thursday’s ruling said the ruling would make it more difficult to prosecute sex crimes committed by people who know their victims and may have ongoing relationships with them, as in Weinstein’s case.

Justice Anthony Cannataro, who was among the dissenters, called it “an unfortunate step backwards from recent advances in our understanding of how sex crimes are committed.”

Another dissenting judge, Madeline Singas, said the ruling would effectively end the use of prior bad-act witnesses in such cases and make it harder to prove intent.